A few comments:

1) I would like to welcome the return of Sally Fallon and Mary Enig to our
discussions.  Their comments are always a thought-provoking welcome here.

2) I would like to take a couple of minor exceptions to their recent
comments to our membership. However, I want to be clear that they should be
taken without prejudice--that is, that my comments are not "leading" toward
any point of view or to be taken as an attack on any other statement made
by Enig & Fallon or anyone else.  They address the specific points they
address and nothing more--period.

3) Enig and Fallon state that "...the prevailing viewpoint in this
discussion is that paleodiet was high in protein, but nonatherogenic..."
This is probably correct, but it is worth noting that this viewpoint can
only safely be said to "prevail" with the two or three people who have
actually put it forward.  No one has strongly attacked this viewpoint to
date, but this should not necessarily be taken to mean that the 99% of the
membership who have remained silent on the point are in complete agreement
with the 1% who have espoused it.

4) I feel than Enig and Fallon are somewhat guilty of sidestepping the
issue of cereal grains, inasmuch as it seems almost impossible that cereals
could have been more than a minor or occasional component to the human diet
prior to the neolithic revolution.